Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43
  1. #1
    -=Tawcan=- Guest

    Question WD 8mb cache HD?

    Does the 8mb cache make the HD that much faster?

    $249 Western Digital 800JB 80Gb 7200rpm 8Mb cache ata100

    $149 Maxtor DX740-6L 80Gb ata133 7200rpm 2mb buffer

    $100 more..... worth it?

  2. #2
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Bedford, England
    Posts
    458
    Probably not for that price difference, sounds like a lot. In UK, prices are:
    Maxtor 80GB D740X-6L 89
    WD 80GB WD800JB 101

    For that difference, it's worth it (I just ordered one) as there is quite a performance improvement, but for everyday applications, you probably won't notice it. Wait until the price of the WD falls a bit.

    MSI Neo2 Platinum nForce3 Ultra S939
    Athlon 64 3500+ 90nm @2607 (11x237)
    Thermalright XP-90 + Papst 92mm 55cfm
    4x1GB Crucial PC3200
    Raptor 74GB SATA system drive + WD800JB data + Highpoint RocketRAID 100 (2x 80GB WD800JB RAID-1) + Onboard SATA (2x 120GB Maxtor DM9+ SATA RAID-0) + Maxtor Maxline Plus II 250GB backup drive
    Radeon X800 Pro (16 pipes) 500/500MHz
    Win XP SP2

    Part-time SETI crunchers: Athlon XP 2400+; Athlon XP 2100+; Athlon XP Barton 2500+@2.0GHz; Pentium-M 745

  3. #3
    Joined
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    303
    $249 Western Digital 800JB 80Gb 7200rpm 8Mb cache ata100
    I got mine for 107$ at Dell's accessories store. That was a special sale. Newegg.com has them for 114$.

    EDIT: sorry I don't know what the exchange rate is, were your prices in canadian?
    1.4 Tbird @ 1533 Asus A7V266 256mb PC2100 DDR

    800 Tbird Asus A7V 256mb PC133

    366 Celeron @ 550 Epox EP-3VBM 256mb PC100

  4. #4
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    that is a pretty big price hike and i would have to agree with the rest of the ppl who replied. wait for that price to come down a little(unless you have the money to burn and nothing else better to spend it on ). i just installed mine the other night and its fast. very nice drives.
    hmm...

  5. #5
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554
    Originally posted by The Wise One
    i just installed mine the other night and its fast. very nice drives.
    How do ya like it so far? Some impressions please? Also run some benchmarks. Not for the numbers in and of themselves, but to see that the bencmarks do not relect the effect of that cache when it comes to what you see and feel sitting there at the console running apps and other normal daily rountine stuff. That is the only test that really counts and that is what makes the drive impressive.

  6. #6
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by BWM


    How do ya like it so far? Some impressions please? Also run some benchmarks. Not for the numbers in and of themselves, but to see that the bencmarks do not relect the effect of that cache when it comes to what you see and feel sitting there at the console running apps and other normal daily rountine stuff. That is the only test that really counts and that is what makes the drive impressive.
    to tell you the truth, im impressed. i ran a single 40 gig maxtor ata 133 for a bit. comparing that to this JB drive, the feel of it and the loading and execution of programs is faster. i can see and feel the difference. money well spent in my eyes.

    i ran a test where i removed my raid config and just ran this jb drive. lets just say im not reinstalling my raid array until i can get another one of these jb drives. it is still a bit slower than running raid(of course) but you dont see it all that much. very nice dirves and as it stands right now, i would recommend these drives hands down!

    becnhmarking comes tonight
    hmm...

  7. #7
    -=Tawcan=- Guest
    Can someone post some benchmark scores?

    Is there THAT much speed difference?

  8. #8
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by Tawcan
    Can someone post some benchmark scores?

    Is there THAT much speed difference?
    give me about 10 minutes T and ill hook you up.

    this will be a clean install bench.
    hmm...

  9. #9
    Joined
    Jun 2002
    Location
    catford south london
    Posts
    8,208
    tawcan ive put some numbers in the thread below i would not mind some comments on,never really benched a disk before

  10. #10
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554
    The Wise One said it well.

    Benchmark results are great but can't tell the whole story because they don't reflect the effect of the 8 meg cache in real-world use. Sitting at the keyboard doing every day run of the mill stuff leaves no doubt which is faster because you can actually see and feel it. It has to be more than just a little advantage to be seen/felt that easily.

    Here's Storage Review's write-up of the 1200JB:

    http://www.storagereview.com/article...D1200JB_1.html

    I've had or have now, 60GXP, 75GXP, D740X, and now the JB models. JB feels faster than any of them hands down. Especially in A/V editing, imaging, and other tasks that handle large files. 120GXP felt next best (until it died). D740X is my second choice.
    Last edited by BWM; 07-10-2002 at 04:36 PM.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by BWM
    Benchmark results can't tell the whole story because they don't reflect the effect of the 8 meg cache in real-world use. Sitting at the keyboard doing every day run of the mill stuff leaves no doubt which is faster because you can actually see and feel it. It has to be more than just a little advantage to be seen/felt that easily.

    I've had or have now, 60GXP, 75GXP, D740X, and now the JB models. JB feels faster than any of them hands down. Especially in A/V editing, imaging, and other tasks that handle large files. 120GXP felt next best (until it died). D740X is my second choice.
    i agree 100%

    i too feel and see the difference. i have a run atto and hdtach just to throw some numbers at you Tawcan.

    atto

    hdtach

    keep in mind this is NOT raid and does not include any latency patches.
    hmm...

  12. #12
    Joined
    Jun 2002
    Location
    catford south london
    Posts
    8,208
    wise please look at my numbers

    im confused having looked at yours

    my writes are a lot faster than yours

    but my reads a lot slower by big margins

  13. #13
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554
    Very nice indeed Wise One. Both runs look an awfull lot like mine, except that I think 98-SE HD performance is just a wee bit better. Definately nothing to crowe about though.

    BTW - The wierdness ya see with .5 through 16k transfer sizes is due to the relationship between the transfer size and disk allocation unit size. Nothing unusual there. That's why it straightens out at 32k and above.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by wonkanoby
    wise please look at my numbers

    im confused having looked at yours

    my writes are a lot faster than yours

    but my reads a lot slower by big margins
    you are running raid right ?

    that would explain the faster writes. i am only running one drive on ide 0.

    as far as the reads go....did you try to apply the raid performance patch from viaarena.com and george breeze latency patch ? that might clear you up.
    hmm...

  15. #15
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36,161
    Originally posted by BWM
    Very nice indeed Wise One. Both runs look an awfull lot like mine, except that I think 98-SE HD performance is just a wee bit better. Definately nothing to crowe about though.

    BTW - The wierdness ya see with .5 through 16k transfer sizes is due to the relationship between the transfer size and disk allocation unit size. Nothing unusual there. That's why it straightens out at 32k and above.
    i dont know how much of a diff it actually is but if its as marginal as you make it sound, my resutls could change by that much on the next bench. i havent installed any patches what so ever and given the results plus the feel, i dont think im going too.

    i was wonderin about that .5 thru 16k. thanks for that tidbit.
    hmm...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •